PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Andrew G. Reynolds
AU  - Douglas A. Wardle
AU  - Margaret A. Cliff
AU  - Marjorie King
TI  - Impact of Training System and Vine Spacing on Vine Performance, Berry Composition, and Wine Sensory Attributes of Riesling
AID  - 10.5344/ajev.2004.55.1.96
DP  - 2004 Jan 01
TA  - American Journal of Enology and Viticulture
PG  - 96--103
VI  - 55
IP  - 1
4099  - http://www.ajevonline.org/content/55/1/96.short
4100  - http://www.ajevonline.org/content/55/1/96.full
SO  - Am J Enol Vitic.2004 Jan 01; 55
AB  - Own-rooted Riesling vines were subjected over a four-year-period to five training treatments (alternate double crossarm, ADC; Lenz Moser, LM; low cordon, LC; low-V, LV; and pendelbogen, PB) and three vine spacings (1.4, 1.8, and 2.4 m). Divided canopies led to weights of cane prunings (vine size) and mean cane weights that were optimal (0.32 to 0.65 kg/m canopy; 15.4 to 34.5 g/cane). Yields were consistently highest for divided canopies as well. Crop loads (ratio of yield: weight of cane prunings) of divided canopies exceeded the presently accepted level (10 to 12) beyond which wine quality could be compromised, but berry, must, and wine composition (Brix, titratable acidity, and pH) were not strongly impacted by training system. Increasing vine spacing led to lower vine size (per m row), cane weights, and occasionally reduced Brix. Riesling wines were also not strongly influenced by training system, except for higher vegetative aroma in the ADC wines. These data strongly suggest that high wine quality may be obtained from divided canopies despite large crop size and high crop loads.Acknowledgments: We wish to thank the following members of the taste panel: Mike Bernardy, Mike Bouthillier, Tony Cottrell, Pascal Delaquis, Kimberly Dever, Horst Donner, Benoit Girard, Hilary Graham, Linda Herbert, Judy Harrison, Tom Kopp, Linda Jensen, Heather McBrien, Sandra Stewart, Laszlo Veto, and Jim Wild.